■ 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES  AND 
SPECIFICATIONS  SUBMITTED  TO 
THE  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 


BY 


PROF.  CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS,  D.D. 


Copyright,  1891,  by 

CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS,  D.D. 


VII. 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES  AND  SPECI¬ 
FICATIONS. 

Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers,  and  Elders  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York: 

Gentlemen  :  I  appear  before  you  at  this  time  in 
compliance  with  your  citation,  dated  October  6,  1891, 
to  plead  to  the  charges  and  specifications  placed  in  my 
hands  by  the  Presbytery  at  that  time.  It  is  now  my 
right,  in  accordance  with  the  Book  of  Discipline,  §  22, 
to  “file  objections,”  if  I  have  any,  “to  the  regularity 
of  the  organization,  or  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  judica¬ 
tory,  or  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifica¬ 
tions  in  form  and  in  legal  effect,  or  any  other  sub¬ 
stantial  objection  affecting  the  order  or  regularity  of 
the  proceeding.” 

I  have  no  objections  to  the  regularity  of  the  organ¬ 
ization,  or  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York;  but  it  is  necessary,  both  in  my  own  inter¬ 
est  and  in  the  interest  of  the  order  and  regularity  of 
the  judicial  proceedings  in  the  Presbytery,  to  file  objec¬ 
tions  “  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifica¬ 
tions  in  form  ”  and  “  in  legal  effect.” 

It  is  far  from  my  purpose  to  raise  any  objections  of 
a  technical  kind,  that  may  in  any  way  directly  or  in¬ 
directly  delay  the  probation  of  charges  that  are  ap¬ 
proved  as  sufficient,  and  specifications  that  are  recog¬ 
nized  as  relevant  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York;  but 
the  order  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  requires  that  the 


4 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


question  of  relevancy  should  first  be  decided  by  the 
Presbytery,  before  I  can  with  propriety  plead  “  guilty/’ 
or  “  not  guilty.” 

No  one  has  made  this  clearer  than  the  Rev.  E.  R. 
Craven,  D.D.,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the 
General  Assembly  which  prepared  the  present  Book  of 
Discipline,  when  he  said  : 

“  In  every  trial  there  are  two  issues :  first,  do  the  facts 
alleged,  if  true,  sustain  the  charge  ?  and,  second,  are  the  facts 
true?  Ordinarily  the  affirmative  of  the  former  question  is 
tacitly  assumed  by  both  the  judicatory  and  the  accused  person. 
In  such  cases  the  only  question  to  be  decided  is  the  latter. 
Cases  sometimes  arise,  however,  especially  where  there  is  an 
individual  prosecutor,  in  which  both  issues  must  be  tried. 
They  cannot,  with  propriety,  be  tried  together,  for  one  is  a 
question  of  law,  the  other  of  evidence.  In  such  cases  it  is 
manifest  wisdom  to  dispose  of  the  legal  question  first,  and  thus 
possibly  prevent  a  useless  waste  of  time  and  laceration  of  feel¬ 
ing.” — Presbyterian  Review ,  1884,  p.  57. 

Adopting  the  course  thus  recommended,  I  do  hereby 
file  the  following  objections  to  the  “sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  in  legal  effect.” 

I. — THE  PREAMBLE. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Presbytery, 
which  presented  the  charges  and  specifications,  con¬ 
tains  in  its  preamble,  intimation  of  charges  and  speci¬ 
fications  which  they  have  not  proposed  for  trial,  as 
follows : 

“  R  has  been  decided  by  your  committee  that  it  is  neither 
necessary  nor  advisable  to  embrace  in  the  list  of  charges  all 
the  doctrinal  errors  contained  in  the  inaugural  address,  and, 
while  its  teachings  respecting  miracles,  the  original  condition 
of  man,  the  nature  of  sin,  race  redemption,  and  Dr.  Briggs’ 
scheme  ofj  Biblical  theology  in  general,  are  not  in  harmony 


THE  PREAMBLE. 


5 


with  the  Scriptures,  and  are  calculated  to  weaken  confidence 
in  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  encourage  presumption  on  the 
clemency  and  long-suffering  of  God,  yet  in  order  that  we  may 
avoid  an  undue  extension  of  the  trial,  and  the  confusion  of 
thought  that  might  follow  an  attempt  to  compass  all  the 
errors  contained  in  said  address,  we  have  deemed  it  best  to 
confine  attention  to  a  few  departures  from  the  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures  which  are  fundamental  to  the  entire  discussion. 

“  Furthermore,  your  committee  is  not  unmindful  of  the  fact 
that  the  erroneous  and  ill-advised  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  in 
the  inaugural  address  have  seriously  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
Church  and  led  to  a  situation  full  of  difficulty  and  complica¬ 
tion,  and  have  produced  such  wide-spread  uneasiness  and  agi¬ 
tation  throughout  the  Church  as  to  cause  sixty-three  Presby¬ 
teries  to  overture  the  General  Assembly  with  reference  to  the 
same,  yet  for  the  reasons  above  given  we  have  determined  not 
to  include  this  grave  offence  against  the  peace  of  the  Church 
in  the  list  of  formal  charges  ”  (pp.  4,  5). 

I  object  (1)  that,  if  there  are  any  such  errors  con¬ 
tained  in  my  inaugural  address  as  the  committee  allege 
in  the  preamble  of  their  Report,  it  was  their  duty  to 
formulate  them  into  charges  and  specifications  suffi¬ 
cient  in  form  and  in  legal  effect. 

(2) .  That,  if  the  committee  did  not  think  best  so  to 
do,  they  should  have  refrained  from  alleging  doctrinal 
errors  which  they  did  not  propose  to  submit  to  pro¬ 
bation,  and  which  so  alleged  without  opportunity  of 
refutation,  seem  calculated  to  exert  prejudice  against 
me  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  court. 

(3) .  That,  if,  as  the  Report  alleges,  “The  erroneous 
and  ill-advised  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  the  inau¬ 
gural  address  have  seriously  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
Church,’'  and,  these  constitute  a  “  grave  offence  against 
the  peace  of  the  Church,”  it  was  the  duty  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  to  formulate  this  grave  offence  into  a  charge 
and  specification  “sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect.” 


6 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


(4).  That,  if  it  was  not  deemed  best  so  to  do,  the 
Report  should  have  refrained  from  alleging  a  grave 
offence  which  was  not  proposed  for  probation,  the  alle¬ 
gation  of  which  might  prejudice  the  decision  of  those 
charges  and  specifications  offered  for  probation. 

The  Presbytery  are  requested  therefore  to  blot  out 
from  the  Report  these  insinuations  and  imputations  of 
doctrinal  errors  and  grave  offence. 

If  I  have  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  been  the 
occasion  of  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church,  I 
deeply  regret  it.  If  I  have  given  pain  and  anxiety  to 
my  brethren  in  the  ministry,  or  to  the  people  of 

,  I3  any  utterances  in  the  inaugural 
address,  I  am  very  sorry.  But  after  repeated  reread¬ 
ings  of  the  address,  away  from  the  seat  of  strife,  in  a 
foreign  land,  I  cannot  honestly  say  that  there  are  any 
such  doctrinal  errors  in  the  address  as  the  Report 
alleges,  and  at  the  bar  of  my  own  conscience,  I  feel 
no  guilt  as  regards  the  grave  offence  of  disturbing  the 
peace  and  harmony  of  the  Church. 

II. — THE  CHARGES. 

I  object  “  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  Charges  ”  “in 
form  ”  and  “legal  effect.” 

The  rules  relating  to  the  charge  in  the  Book  of  Disci¬ 
pline  are:  (1).  “  The  charge  shall  set  forth  the  alleged 
offence”  (§15);  (2).  “A  charge  shall  not  allege  more 
than  one  offence  ”  (§  16) ;  (3).  The  supreme  court  of  the 
Church  has  decided  that  “  All  charges  for  heresy  should 
be  as  definite  as  possible.  The  article  or  articles  of 
faith  impugned  should  be  specified,  and  the  words  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  heretical  shown  to  be  in  repugnance  to 
these  articles ;  whether  the  reference  is  made  directly 
to  the  Scripture  as  a  standard  of  orthodoxy ;  or  to  the 


THE  CHARGES. 


7 


Confession  oi  Faith,  which  our  Church  holds  to  be  a 
summary  of  the  doctrines  of  Scripture  ”  ( Craighead 
Case ,  1824,  p.  1 21). 

I  object  that  the  charges  comply  with  none  of  the 
rules. 

(1) .  Charge  I.  sets  forth  “  more  than  one  offence .” 
It  alleges  “  teaching  doctrines  which  conflict  irrecon¬ 
cilably  with,  and  are  contrary  to,  the  cardinal  doctrine 
taught  in  Holy  Scripture,”  etc.  (p.  5).  If,  as  alleged, 
more  than  one  doctrine,  or  a  plurality  of  doctrines  is 
taught,  which  conflict  with  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  Holy 
Scripture,  there  is  a  plurality  of  offences  and  each  one 
of  these  cardinal  offences  should  be  mentioned  in  a 
separate  charge.  Charge  I.  alleges  several  offences. 

(2) .  Charge  /.  does  not  “ set  forth  the  alleged  offence .” 
It  alleges  “  teaching  doctrines  that  conflict  with,  and 
are  contrary  to,”  etc.  It  does  not  specify  what  doctrine 
it  is,  or  what  doctrines  these  are  which  “  conflict  irrec¬ 
oncilably  with,  and  are  contrary  to  the  cardinal  doc¬ 
trine.”  I  object  (a),  that  I  cannot  with  propriety 
plead  guilty,  or  not  guilty,  to  teaching  such  doctrines, 
until  I  know  what  doctrines  the  prosecution  have  in 
mind. 

(&).  So  far  as  I  know,  I  have  never  taught  any  doc¬ 
trines  that  conflict  with  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  Holy 
Scripture.  It  is  conceivable  that  I  may  be  mistaken, 
and  that  I  might  acknowledge  my  error  if  such  doc¬ 
trines  were  specified  by  the  prosecution. 

(< c ).  The  charge  is  so  general,  vague,  and  obscure, 
that  it  comprehends  any  and  every  reason  that  any  one 
may  find  for  judging  that  my  teachings  are  contrary  to 
my  ordination  vow,  “that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice  and  thus  enables  the  jurors  to  vote  for 


8 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


my  condemnation,  one  for  one  reason,  another  for  a 
second  reason,  a  third  for  a  third  reason,  and  so  on, 
securing  by  the  cumulation  of  votes  for  different  rea¬ 
sons,  a  judgment  that  might  not  be  secured  if  each 
reason  were  proved  and  voted  upon  by  itself. 

(3).  The  charges  are  not  specific  and  definite.  It  is 
true  that  Charge  I.  is  so  far  definite  that  it  alleges  the 
cardinal  doctrine  that  “  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  as  that  doctrine  with  which  the  doctrines 
taught  by  me  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict.  This  implies 
that  I  have  taught  some  other  doctrine  than  said  cardinal 
doctrine.  But  the  Charge  is  not  definite  and  specific  in 
that  it  fails  to  define  what  doctrine  it  is  that  has  been 
taught  in  the  inaugural  address,  that  is  in  conflict  with, 
and  contrary  to,  said  cardinal  doctrine. 

Charge  II.  is  less  general  and  vague  than  Charge  I., 
for  whereas  Charge  I.  alleges  “  teaching  doctrines  ” 
which  conflict ;  Charge  II.  alleges  teaching  “a  doctrine 
of  the  character,  state,  and  sanctification  of  believers 
after  death  ”  (p.  39),  which  irreconcilably  conflicts  ;  but 
this  latter  is  yet  indefinite  and  vague,  for  the  reason 
that  it  does  not  define  what  precise  doctrine  it  is,  out 
of  the  many  different  doctrines  taught  by  theologians 
in  this  department  of  Eschatology,  that  is  an  offence. 
Charge  II.  while  more  specific  than  Charge  I.  in  its 
reference  to  the  doctrine  taught  by  Dr.  Briggs,  is  more 
seriously  at  fault  than  Charge  I.,  in  that  Charge  I.  men¬ 
tions  the  cardinal  doctrine  that  “the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,”  but  Charge  II.  does  not  state  what 
doctrine  it  is  of  Holy  Scripture  or  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  with  which  the  doctrine  taught  by  me  is  in 
irreconcilable  conflict. 


THE  CHARGES. 


9 


I  would  be  entirely  willing  to  waive  this  objection  to 
the  charges  as  not  specific  and  definite,  if  this  were  the 
only  ground  of  objection  and  there  were  any  proper 
way  of  reaching  definite  charges  by  means  of  the  spec¬ 
ifications.  But  this  way  out  of  the  difficulty  is  closed 
against  us,  as  we  shall  soon  see.  I  am  obliged  in  the 
interest  of  the  orderly  procedure,  in  a  case  which  is  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  review  of  a  superior  and  of  a  supreme  court, 
to  file  this  objection,  even  if  it  be  less  serious  than 
others  which  are  now  to  be  adduced. 

(4).  I  object  to  the  sufficiency  of  Charge  II.  for  the 
reason  that  it  does  not  indicate  that  the  offence  charged 
is  against  an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  the  system 
of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession. 
The  Law  of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  the  Book  of 
Discipline  (§4)  is,  that-- 

“Nothing  shall  therefore  be  the  object  of  judicial 
process,  which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  contrary  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  or  to  the  regulations  and  practice  of 
the  Church  founded  thereon  ;  nor  anything  which  does 
not  involve  those  evils  which  Discipline  is  intended  to 
prevent.” 

In  the  second  term  of  subscription,  the  offence  in 
doctrine  is  limited  as  follows  :  “  Do  you  sincerely  re¬ 
ceive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church, 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures?”  This  subscription  is  in  accordance 
with  the  Adopting  Act  of  1729,  which  requires  sub¬ 
scription  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
“as  being  in  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles, 
good  forms  of  sound  words  and  systems  of  Christian 
doctrine.”  The  supreme  court  of  the  Church,  in  the 
Harker  case,  1765*  defined  this  when  it  said,  1  essential 
to  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  our  Westmin- 


10 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


ster  Confession  of  Faith  considered  as  a  system.”  These 
regulations  and  decisions  of  the  supreme  court  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  require  that  nothing  shall  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  an  offence  which  is  not  contrary  to  an  essen¬ 
tial  and  necessary  article  of  the  Westminster  Confes¬ 
sion.  Charge  I.  complies  with  this  rule  in  so  far  as  it 
represents  that  the  doctrine  “that  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  ”  is  a  “  cardinal  doctrine 
but  Charge  II.  does  not  comply  with  the  regulations 
of  the  Church,  in  that  it  neglects  to  state  what  cardinal 
doctrine,  or  what  essential  and  necessary  article,  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  it  is  with  which  the 
doctrine  taught  by  me  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict. 

When  these  two  charges  are  placed  side  by  side,  the 
one  exposes  the  faults  of  the  other,  and  convicts  it  of 
insufficiency.  Each  is  insufficient  where  the  other  is 
sufficient.  Each  is  indefinite  and  vague  where  the 
other  is  more  definite  and  specific.  Charge  I.  defines 
the  doctrine  to  which  the  doctrines  taught  by  me  are 
opposed  ,  Charge  II.  makes  no  statement  at  all  of  any 
doctrine  of  Scripture  or  Confession  to  which  my  teach¬ 
ings  are  opposed.  Charge  II.  mentions  a  general  group 
of  doctrines  taught  by  me  which,  it  is  claimed,  is  op¬ 
posed  to  Scripture  and  Confession,  but  Charge  I. 
makes  no  definition  whatever  of  any  doctrines  taught 
by  me.  Charge  II.  alleges  one  offence  where  Charge 
I.  alleges  several.  Charge  I.  states  cardinal  doctrine 
where  Charge  II.  makes  no  mention  of  cardinal  doc¬ 
trine.  Charges  I.  and  II.  are  therefore  “insufficient  in 
form  and  legal  effect 

HI. — THE  SPECIFICATIONS. 

I  object  to  the  Specifications  as  irrelevant,  “  insufficient 
in  form  and  legal  effect ,”  for  the  following  reasons  : 


THE  SPECIFICATIONS. 


11 


The  law  of  the  specification  as  given  in  the  Book  of 
Discipline  is  that  “  The  specifications  shall  set  forth  the 
facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the  charge  ”  (§  1 5).  The  com¬ 
mittee  seem  to  have  an  indefinite  conception  of  the 
nature  of  specifications.  Some  of  the  specifications 
seem  to  have  been  framed  as  if  they  were  particular 
items  of  the  general  charge,  others  as  if  they  were  par¬ 
ticulars  of  a  still  more  general  charge  than  that  alleged 
in  Charge  I.,  and  still  others  as  if  they  were  striving  to 
state  the  facts  required  by  the  rule  for  specifications  in 
our  Book  of  Discipline.  Lest  there  should  be  obscur¬ 
ity  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  court  on  this 
point,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  citing  from  that  an¬ 
cient  and  classic  authority  in  Presbyterian  law,  upon 
which  the  American  Book  of  Discipline  is  based.  The 
Libel  in  the  Scottish  law-books  comprehends  the  three 
parts — charge,  specification,  and  judgment. 

“  A  Libel  is  a  Law  Syllogism,  consisting  of  the  Proposition 
or  Relevancy,  which  is  founded  upon  the  Laws  of  God,  or  some 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution  agreeable  thereto,  as,  whosoever  is 
absent  from  publick  Divine  Service  on  the  Lord’s  Day,  ought 
to  be  censured.  The  second  Part  consists  of  the  subsumption 
or  probation,  which  condescends  on  matter  of  Fact,  viz.,  But 
such  a  person  did,  upon  such  or  such  a  Lord’s  Day,  absent  un¬ 
necessarily  from  the  publick  Worship  of  God.  The  third  Part 
consists  of  the  Conclusion  or  Sentence,  which  contains  a  Desire, 
that  the  Profaner  of  the  Lord’s  Day,  according  to  the  Laws 
and  Customs  mentioned  in  the  first  part,  may  be  Censured.” — 
Walter  Stewart,  “  Collections  and  Observations  concerning  the 
Worship,  Discipline ,  and  Government  of  the  Church  of  Scot¬ 
land ,”  p.  268. 

The  Standard  Authority  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
at  the  present  time  gives  a  similar  statement : 

“  The  body  of  the  libel  consists  of  three  parts,  which  togethei 
should  form  a  regular  syllogism.  The  first,  or  major  proposi- 


12 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


vion,  sets  forth  thG  criminality  of  the  species  facti  charged,  and 
alleges  the  guilt  of  the  accused  ;  the  second,  or  minor,  narrates 
the  facts  of  the  particular  offence  ;  and  the  third,  or  conclusion, 
deduces  the  justice  of  punishing  the  individual  offender.  The 
major  proposition  should  be  made  as  brief  and  comprehensive 
as  possible.  By  overloading  it,  the  logical  structure  of  the 
libel  is  impaired,  and  unnecessary  discussions  on  relevancy  may 
be  raised.  It  may  be  difficult  to  bring  ecclesiastical  offences 
under  specific  and  generic  names  to  the  degree  in  which  crimes 
are  classified  in  the  civil  law.  But  it  is  desirable  that  this 
should  be  done  as  far  as  possible,  in  order  to  facilitate  certainty 
and  simplicity  in  the  criminal  proceedings  of  church  courts. 
Where  it  is  necessary  to  use  circumlocution  in  expressing  the 
general  nature  of  the  offence,  nothing  should  be  introduced 
which  is  not  essential  to  the  criminal  charge.  Where  it  is  im¬ 
possible,  from  the  nature  of  the  offence,  to  bring  it  under  any 
generic  denomination,  the  particular  offence  intended  to  be 
charged  should  be  set  forth  in  the  major  as  criminal  in  the  ab¬ 
stract,  and  should  be  repeated  in  the  minor  as  having  been 
committed  by  the  accused  at  a  certain  time  and  place.” — Cook, 
“Styles  of  Writs ,  Forms  of  Procedure ,  and  Practice  of  the 
Church  Courts  of  Scotland ,”  pp.  1 19,  120. 

The  Standard  Authority  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scot¬ 
land  is  in  entire  accord  therewith  : 

“  It  has  been  established  by  long  practice  that  no  judicial 
process  of  a  serious  kind  can  be  carried  out  against  a  minister 
or  a  probationer,  except  by  the  use  of  what  is  called  a  Libel. 
This  is  a  document  consisting  of  three  parts,  and  forming  a  reg¬ 
ular  syllogism.  The  first,  or  major  proposition,  sets  forth  the 
nature  of  the  alleged  offence,  declares  its  contrariety  to  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  laws  of  the  Church,  and  indicates  the 
kind  of  consequences  which  ought  to  follow  from  it.  The  sec¬ 
ond,  or  minor  proposition,  asserts  the  guilt  of  the  minister  or 
probationer,  and  specifies  what  are  believed  to  be  the  leading 
facts  involving  guilt,  and  particularizing  time,  place,  and  other 
circumstances.  This  proposition  may  contain  one  or  more 
counts  of  indictment.  The  third  part  connects  the  major  and 
minor  propositions  together,  and  thereby  deduces  the  conclu- 


SPECIFICATION  OF  CHARGE  II. 


13 


sion  that  the  minister  or  probationer,  as  guilty  of  the  offence 
mentioned  in  the  major  proposition,  ought  to  be  subjected  to 
the  consequences,  provided  the  minor  proposition  be  made 
good,  either  by  confession  or  by  adequate  evidence.  It  is  of 
great  importance  that  care  be  taken  to  frame  the  Libel  with 
accuracy,  so  as  to  avoid  grounds  for  questioning  its  relevancy.” 
— Sir  Henry  Moncrieff,  “  The  Practice  of  the  Free  Church  of 
Scotland,”  pp.  1 1 8,  119. 

The  rules  of  our  Book  of  Discipline  are  based  upon 
the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  The  charge 
corresponds  with  the  first,  or  major  proposition  of  the 
Libel ;  the  specification  corresponds  with  the  second,  or 
minor  proposition  ;  the  sentence,  with  the  third  part  or 
conclusion.  It  is  essential  that  the  minor  premise,  or 
the  specification,  should  be  relevant  to  the  major  proposi¬ 
tion,  or  the  charge  ;  otherwise  a  person  may  be  judged 
innocent  or  guilty  of  a  charge  with  which  the  facts  ad¬ 
duced  have  no  manner  of  relevancy,  and  sentenced  to 
unrighteous  suffering.  A  Presbytery  cannot  with  pro¬ 
priety  enter  upon  the  probation  of  a  specification,  which 
specification  if  proven  would  not  substantiate  the  charge. 

With  these  preliminary  statements  I  shall  now  pro¬ 
ceed  to  file  objections  to  the  relevancy  of  the  specifi¬ 
cations. 

I. — SPECIFICATION  OF  CHARGE  II. 

I  prefer  to  dispose  first  of  the  single  specification 
under  Charge  II.  Charge  II.  is  followed  by  a  heading 
entitled  “  specification  but,  in  fact,  there  is  no  speci¬ 
fication  whatever,  but  only  the  general  statement :  “  In 
the  said  inaugural  address,  delivered,  published,  exten¬ 
sively  circulated  and  republished  as  above  described, 
Dr.  Briggs  teaches  as  follows”  (p.  39).  Turning  to 
Charge  I.  we  find  that  a  statement  corresponding  to 
this  is  made  as  the  second  section  of  the  charge.  Place 


14 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


the  two  side  by  side  and  this  will  be  evident  at  a 
glance : 

Charge  I. 

“  These  hurtful  errors,  strik¬ 
ing  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and 
contrary  to  the  regulations  and 
practice  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  were  promulgated  in 
an  inaugural  address  which  Dr. 

Briggs  delivered  at  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  Jan.  20,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induc¬ 
tion  into  the  Edward  Robinson 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology, 
which  address  has,  with  Dr. 

Briggs’  approval,  been  pub¬ 
lished  and  extensively  circu¬ 
lated,  and  republished  in  a  sec¬ 
ond  edition  with  a  preface  and 
an  appendix  ”  (p.  5). 

If  such  a  statement  belong  to  Charge  I.,  it  does 
not  belong  to  the  specification  of  Charge  II.  The  only 
item  under  the  so-called  specification  of  Charge  II.,  not 
corresponding  to  the  statement  made  under  Charge  I., 
is  the  clause  “  teaches  as  follows.”  In  all  the  previous 
specifications,  the  references  under  the  head  of  “  Inau¬ 
gural  Address”  are  a  part  of  the  proof;  here,  however, 
they  are  made  a  part  of  the  specification.  This  so- 
called  specification  is  a  heaping  up  of  extracts  from  six 
pages  of  the  Inaugural  Address.  I  shall  admit  the  cor¬ 
rectness  of  the  citations.  If  therefore  no  objection  is 
taken  to  their  propriety  in  the  specification,  or  to  their 
relevancy  under  the  charge,  the  defendant  is  placed  in 
a  disadvantageous  position  as  to  the  verdict  which 
might  be  rendered  against  him  on  the  basis  of  any  one 
of  the  thirty-four  verses  of  Scripture  cited,  or  any  clause 
of  the  several  extracts  from  the  Standards. 

There  is  nothing  whatever  in  the  specification.  It 


SPECIFICATION  OF  CHARGE  II. 

“  In  the  said  inaugural  ad¬ 
dress,  delivered,  published,  ex¬ 
tensively  circulated  and  repub¬ 
lished  as  above  described,  Dr. 
Briggs  teaches  as  follows  ”  (p. 
39)- 


SPECIFICATION  OF  CHARGE  II. 


15 


makes  no  specification  of  fact  such  as  could  be  ad¬ 
mitted  or  refuted.  If  the  specification  had  pointed  to 
any  erroneous  doctrine  taught  by  me  ;  if  I  had  been 
charged  with  teaching  second  probation  or  any  probation 
whatever  after  death,  I  might  have  pointed  to  several  of 
my  writings  in  which  this  doctrine  is  distinctly  dis¬ 
claimed.  If  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  had  been  im¬ 
puted,  or  regeneration  after  death,  or  transition  after 
death  from  the  state  of  the  condemned  to  the  state  of 
the  justified,  any  and  all  of  these  could  have  been  dis¬ 
proved  from  my  writings.  If  any  insinuation  had  been 
made  that  I  had  taught  that  the  redeemed  enter  the 
Middle  State  guilty  and  sinful,  this  could  easily  have 
been  refuted.  But  no  such  doctrines  are  specified.  No 
specific  doctrine  whatever  is  mentioned.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  specification  that  can  be  tested  by  the 
defendant  or  challenged  by  the  Presbytery. 

There  was  no  sufficient  reason  for  indefiniteness  and 
vagueness  here.  The  doctrine  taught  in  the  Inaugural 
Address  is  Progressive  Sanctification  after  Death.  The 
doctrine  alleged  to  be  in  conflict  with  it  is  Immediate 
Sanctification  at  Death. 

It  will  be  necessary  for  the  prosecution  to  prove  (i) 
that  immediate  sanctification  at  death  is  taught  in  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Standards  ;  (2)  that  it  is  a  cardinal 
doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession  ;  and  (3)  that  the 
two  doctrines  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  each 
other,  ere  the  Presbytery  would  be  justified  in  con¬ 
demning  me.  The  charge  and  so-called  specification 
do  not  make  a  definite  issue.  They  put  the  charge 
and  specification  in  such  an  obscure,  indefinite,  and 
empty  form,  that  the  defendant  is  placed  at  a  serious 
disadvantage  in  pleading,  and  the  jurors  may  be  justi¬ 
fied  in  voting  to  condemn,  on  any  plausible  ground  that 


16 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES 


might  seem  to  them  sufficient,  to  prove  that  in  any  way 
the  views  of  the  Future  State  expressed  in  the  Inaugural 
Address,  are  in  conflict  with  their  own  views  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  Confession. 

2.— SPECIFICATION  5  OF  CHARGE  I. 

Having  disposed  of  the  specification  under  Charge 
II.  we  may  now  devote  our  attention  to  the  seven 
specifications  of  Charge  I.  These  specifications  may 
be  grouped  under  several  heads.  I  shall  review  them 
in  an  order  more  suitable  to  my  purpose  than  that  of 
the  Report  itself.  I  shall  first  consider  specification  5  ; 
(2)  specifications  1  and  6  ;  (3)  specifications  2,  3,  and  4  ; 
(4)  specification  7.  The  first  of  the  specifications  to 
which  I  object  is  specification  5  : 

“  Dr.  Briggs  makes  statements  in  regard  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  true  and  full  inspiration  of  those  Scriptures 
as  the  Word  of  God  written  ”  (p.  21). 

It  should  now  be  kept  distinctly  in  mind  that  a  speci¬ 
fication  must  confine  itself  to  setting  forth  “  the  facts  re¬ 
lied  upon  to  sustain  the  charge  ”  (§  1 5).  This  specification 
does  not  state  a  fact,  but  makes  an  allegation  which  is 
of  the  nature  of  a  charge.  This  will  be  clear  if  one  com¬ 
pares  this  specification  with  Charges  I.  and  II.  Charge 
I.  alleges  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  “  doctrines  which  con¬ 
flict.”  Charge  II.  alleges  that  he  teaches  a  doctrine  of 
“  the  character,  state,  and  sanctification  of  believers 
after  death,”  which  conflicts.  This  specification  alleges 
that  he  makes  “  statements  in  regard  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with,”  etc.  Speci¬ 
fication  5  is  therefore  really  as  much  of  a  charge  as 
Charges  I.  and  II.,  and  has  been  improperly  brought 
under  Charge  I.  But  even  as  a  charge,  it  is  no  true 


SPECIFICATION  5  OF  CHARGE  I.  17 

charge.  It  shares  the  faults  of  the  other  charges.  This 
specification  uses  the  plural  “  statements ,”  involving 
several  offences,  and  it  does  not  specify  what  one  of  the 
many  statements  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Scripture  it  is 
designed  to  allege  against  me.  Placing  this  specifica¬ 
tion  side  by  side  with  Charge  I.,  it  is  clear  that  this 
specification  cannot  be  brought  under  Charge  I.,  for  it 
deals  with  a  different  doctrine.  In  Charge  I.  the  car¬ 
dinal  doctrine  that  “  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice, ’’  the  first  of  the  terms  of  subscription,  is  the  doc¬ 
trine  against  which  it  is  alleged  that  I  offend.  In  this 
specification,  it  is  “  the  true  and  full  inspiration  of  Holy 
Scripture  as  the  Word  of  God  written  ”  (Confession  of 
Faith,  I.  2),  against  which  offence  is  alleged.  These  two 
doctrines  maybe  brought  under  the  general  doctrine  of 
Holy  Scripture  ;  but  the  one  of  these  doctrines  cannot 
be  brought  under  the  other.  Therefore  Specification  5 
is  irrelevant  to  Charge  I. 

When  one  compares  this  Report,  with  its  Charges  and 
Specifications,  with  the  Report  of  the  committee  to 
examine  the  Inaugural  Address,  made  to  Presbytery  in 
May  last,  and  recognizes  that  the  chairman  and  the 
majority  of  both  committees  are  the  same  ;  one  is  en¬ 
titled  to  ask  how  they  can  reconcile  the  two  Reports. 
What  they  then,  in  their  first  Report,  made  their 
second  charge,  and  what  they  then  argued  as  their 
principal  offence,  namely,  the  offence  against  the  iner¬ 
rancy  of  the  original  autographs  of  Scripture,  has  been 
reduced  in  this  Report  to  a  specification  under  Charge 
I.  Here  was  a  definite,  a  distinct  difference  of  doctrine 
as  to  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture,  which  should  have 
been  formulated  into  a  definite  charge  with  specifica¬ 
tions,  so  that  the  Presbytery  might  vote  on  the  ques- 


18 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


tion :  Does  the  Westminster  Confession  teach  the 
inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs  of  Holy  Scripture? 
The  charge  definitely  made  and  argued  last  May  has  been 
depreciated  in  this  Report.  It  has  been  subordinated 
as  a  specification  under  a  different  charge.  It  has  been 
couched  in  such  general,  obscure,  and  indefinite  lan¬ 
guage  as  not  to  enable  a  juror  to  vote  on  the  direct 
question  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs  of 
Scripture ;  but  to  induce  him  to  vote  the  defendant 
guilty  of  a  general  charge  for  any  private  reasons  of 
objection  against  his  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  whatever 
they  may  be. 

Specification  5  ought  to  be  restored  to  its  original 
position  as  given  in  the  Report  of  the  committee  to 
the  Presbytery  in  May  last,  and  made  as  a  distinct 
charge,  and  it  should  state  definitely  the  issue  involved, 
namely,  what  doctrine  is  it  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  that 
is  irreconcilable  with  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  Confession,  as  to  the  inerrancy  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture?  Is  it  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
Confession  that  the  original  autographs  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  were  inerrant  ?  If  such  a  definite  charge  had 
been  made,  then  the  Presbytery  could  test  it  intelli¬ 
gently  and  decide  with  precision. 

3. — SPECIFICATIONS  I  AND  6  OF  CHARGE  I. 

Specifications  1  and  6  may  be  considered  together, 
because  they  are  the  only  two  of  the  eight  specifica¬ 
tions  that  can  be  recognized  as  in  any  sense  true  and 
real,  as  alleging  actual  facts. 

A. — SPECIFICATION  I. 

It  is  a  fact  that  the  Inaugural  Address  declares  that 
there  are  “  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine 
authority,  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,”  but 


SPECIFICATION  1  OF  CHARGE  I. 


19 


Specification  I  is  illegal  in  form,  in  that  it  introduces 
an  inference  from  the  fact,  by  the  prosecution,  that  can¬ 
not  be  recognized  as  either  true  or  valid.  It  is  not 
altogether  clear  what  the  prosecution  mean  to  infer  by 
their  word  “  sufficient .”  If  they  mean  to  intimate  that 
the  Inaugural  teaches  that  the  Church  and  the  Reason 
are  each  alike  sufficient  fountains  of  divine  authority, 
and  that  the  Church  and  the  Reason  are  no  less  “suffi¬ 
cient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  His  will,  which 
is  necessary  unto  salvation,”  than  Holy  Scripture;  they 
infer  what  they  have  no  right  to  infer  from  anything 
taught  in  the  Inaugural  Address.  It  is  unlawful  to  put 
in  specifications  inferences  of  the  prosecution  not  recog¬ 
nized  by  the  accused,  as  if  they  were  facts.  For  the 
supreme  court  of  the  Church  has  decided  in  the  Craig¬ 
head  case : 

“  That  a  man  cannot  fairly  be  convicted  of  heresy,  for  using 
expressions  that  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve  heretical  doc¬ 
trines,  if  they  may  also  admit  of  a  more  favorable  construction  : 
Because,  no  one  can  tell  in  what  sense  an  ambiguous  expression 
is  used,  but  the  speaker  or  writer,  and  he  has  a  right  to  explain 
himself;  and  in  such  cases,  candor  requires  that  a  court  should 
favor  the  accused,  by  putting  on  his  words  the  more  favorable, 
rather  than  the  less  favorable  construction.  Another  principle 
is,  that  no  man  can  rightly  be  convicted  of  heresy  by  inference 
or  implication;  that  is,  we  must  not  charge  an  accused  person 
with  holding  those  consequences  which  may  legitimately  flow 
from  his  assertions.  Many  men  are  grossly  inconsistent  with 
themselves  ;  and  while  it  is  right,  in  argument,  to  overthrow  false 
opinions,  by  tracing  them  in  their  connections  and  consequences, 
it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an  opinion  which  he  dis¬ 
avows."— Craighead  Case:  “  Minutes  of  the  General  Assem¬ 
bly,"  1824,  p.  122. 

Specification  I,  though  it  cites  a  fact,  when  the  in¬ 
valid  inference  is  stricken  out,  is  yet  irrelevant ;  for  the 
specification  does  not  attempt  to  prove  that  this  fact 


20 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


conflicts  with,  and  is  contrary  to,  the  cardinal  doctrine 
that  “the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 
Furthermore  there  is  no  process  of  logic  by  which  this 
specification  can  be  brought  under  the  charge.  The 
Reason  is  a  “  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,”  and 
yet  not  an  “  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  The 
Church  is  a  “great  fountain  of  divine  authority,”  and 
yet  not  an  “infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  The 
Bible  is  a  “great  fountain  of  divine  authority,”  and  it 
is  also  “the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 
Here  are  two  different  statements  of  truths  that  may 
be  embraced  under  a  more  general  truth,  but  to  af¬ 
firm  the  one,  as  to  Bible,  Church,  and  Reason  that 
“  they  are  great  fountains  of  divine  authority,”  is  not 
to  deny  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  one  of  which  the 
other  can  be  affirmed,  namely,  that  “  the  Scriptures  are 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  When 
God  speaks  through  the  conscience,  He  speaks  with  di¬ 
vine  authority  and  the  conscience  becomes  a  “  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority”;  but  the  conscience  does 
not  become  thereby  an  “infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  God  speaks  through  the  holy  sacrament 
with  divine  authority,  and  the  sacrament  of  the  Church 
is  then  a  “  great  fountain  of  divine  authority  ”;  but  it 
does  not  become  thereby  an  “  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  I  affirm  that  I  have  never  anywhere,  or  at 
anytime,  made  any  statements  or  taught  any  doctrines 
that  in  the  slightest  degree  impair  what  I  ever  have  re¬ 
garded  as  a  cardinal  doctrine,  that  “  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

B. — SPECIFICATION  6. 

It  is  a  fact  that  I  have  taught  and  most  firmly  hold 
and  assert  “  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Penta- 


SPECIFICATION  6  OF  CHARGE  I. 


21 


teuch,  and  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the 
book  which  bears  his  name,”  but  Specification  6  does 
not  indicate  by  what  method  of  reasoning  it  brings  this 
fact  under  the  charge.  It  is  irrelevant  to  the  charge. 
If  it  be  a  valid  offence  it  ought  to  have  been  made  the 
ground  of  a  distinct  charge,  and  it  ought  to  have  been 
definitely  stated  what  relation  Moses  has  to  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  and  Isaiah  to  the  book  that  bears  his  name,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Confession,  and  in  what  way  the  doctrine 
stated  by  me  conflicts  therewith,  or  with  Holy^Scripture. 
Though  Moses  be  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  yet 
Mosaic  history,  Mosaic  institutions,  and  Mosaic  legis¬ 
lation  lie  at  the  base  of- all  the  original  documents  ;  and 
the  name  of  Moses  pervades  the  Pentateuch  as  a  sweet 
fragrance,  and  binds  the  whole  together  with  irresistible 
attraction  into  an  organism  of  divine  law.  Even  though 
Moses  be  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  yet  the 
Pentateuch  may  be,  as  I  firmly  believe,  one  of  the  books 
of  Holy  Scripture,  having  divine  authority;  and  the 
Pentateuch  is,  as  I  have  always  taught,  one  of  those 
Holy  Scriptures  which  together  constitute  “  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

Even  though  “  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  the  book 
which  bears  his  name,”  yet  I  firmly  believe  that  holy 
prophets  no  less  inspired  than  Isaiah,  wrote  the  greater 
half  of  the  book  under  the  guidance  of  the  divine 
Spirit,  so  that  the  book  with  different  authors  is  as 
truly  one  of  the  books  of  Holy  Scripture,  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,”  as  if  it  were  writ 
ten  by  Isaiah  alone.  The  fact  adduced  has  no  manner 
of  relevancy  to  the  charge. 

If  the  Presbytery  should  decide  that  these  two  spec¬ 
ifications,  I  and  6,  are  relevant  to  the  Charge,  they  would 
put  the  accused  in  a  false  position  and  expose  him  to 


22 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


the  peril  of  a  condemnation  on  the  basis  of  these 
two  facts,  which,  after  rejecting  the  illegal  inferences, 
he  must  acknowledge  as  true,  but  which  he  claims  need 
explanation,  and  are  entirely  irrelevant  to  the  Charge. 
If  it  be  true  that  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession 
teach  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  Isaiah 
wrote  the  whole  of  the  book  which  bears  his  name, 
these  doctrines  should  be  affirmed  in  charges,  as  car¬ 
dinal  doctrines,  and  the  doctrines  taught  by  me  should 
be  placed  in  such  a  sufficient  legal  form,  that  the  jurors 
might  vote  clearly  and  directly  upon  them. 

It  is  conceivable  that  I  might  be  proven  guilty  of 
teaching  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Confession  in  regard 
to  both  Moses  and  Isaiah,  and  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  as  fountains  of  divine  authority ;  but  it  would 
still  remain  unproven  that  such  teaching  was  opposed 
to  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Confession.  Much  less 
would  it  be  proven  that  these  doctrines  conflict  irrec¬ 
oncilably  with  the  cardinal  doctrine  “  that  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  in¬ 
fallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

4- — SPECIFICATIONS  2,  3,  AND  4  OF  CHARGE  I. 

Specifications  2,  3,  and  4  may  be  grouped,  because 
the  same  objections  hold  against  the  three.  They  all 
make  false  inferences  and  erroneous  statements.  It 
might  be  proper  in  a  civil  court  to  challenge  the  proof 
of  these  so-called  specifications  of  fact ;  but  in  the 
ecclesiastical  court,  according  to  the  decision  already 
quoted  in  the  Craighead  case,  inferences  and  state¬ 
ments,  not  recognized  by  the  accused,  are  not  valid  in 
the  specification  of  offences.  And  it  is  certainly  in  the 
interest  of  truth  and  the  saving  of  valuable  time,  that 


SPECIFICATIONS  2  AND  3  OF  CHARGE  I. 


23 


exception  should  at  once  be  taken  to  them  as  irrel¬ 
evant  and  invalid  specifications  under  the  Charge. 

A. — SPECIFICATIONS  2  AND  3. 

Specification  2  alleges  that  : 

“  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that,  in  the  case  of  some,  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  His 
will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation,  even  though  they  strive 
never  so  hard  ;  and  that  such  persons,  setting  aside  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  word  of  God,  can  obtain  that  saving  knowledge 
of  Him  through  the  Church  ”  (p.  12). 

Specification  3  alleges  that : 

“  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that  some  (such  as  James  Martineau,  who 
denies  the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the 
Atonement,  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body,  the  personality  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  who  rejects  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  and  de¬ 
nies  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  as  well  as  most  of  the 
theology  of  the  Epistles),  to  whom  the  Holy  Scripture  is  not 
sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  His  Will,  which 
is  necessary  unto  salvation,  may  turn  from  the  Supreme  Au¬ 
thority  of  the  Word  of  God  and  find  that  knowledge  of  Him 
through  the  Reason  ”  (p.  15)- 

These  specifications,  as  they  now  stand,  are  false  to 
truth  and  to  fact.  No  such  facts  are  recorded  in  the 
Inaugural  Address.  If,  however,  they  were  true,  and 
it  could  be  proven,  or  I  should  admit,  that  I  had  af¬ 
firmed  that  the  Scriptures  “are  not  sufficient  to  give 
that  knowledge  of  God  and  His  will,  which  is  necessary 
unto  salvation,”  even  then,  in  that  case,  the  specifica¬ 
tions  would  be  irrelevant  to  the  charge,  for  the  charge 
alleges  that  I  teach  doctrines  that  irreconcilably  con¬ 
flict  with  the  cardinal  doctrine  that  “  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  But  these  speci¬ 
fications  allege  a  very  different  thing  which  cannot  be 


24 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


brought  under  that  cardinal  doctrine,  namely,  that 
I  affirm  that  the  Scriptures  “  are  not  sufficient  to 
give  that  knowledge  necessary  unto  salvation.”  The 
sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture  is  one  doctrine,  its  in¬ 
fallibility  another  doctrine,  both  true  and  cardinal 
doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture,  taught  in  the  Westminster 
Confession ;  but  two  different  and  distinct  doctrines  ; 
therefore  Specifications  2  and  3  are  irrelevant  to  the 
charge. 

Furthermore  the  specifications  are  invalid  statements 
of  fact.  For  nowhere  in  the  Inaugural  Address,  or  in 
any  other  writing  that  I  have  written,  is  it  affirmed 
that  “  in  the  case  of  some,  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  not 
sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  His  Will, 
which  is  necessary  unto  salvation”;  or  “that  some,  to 
whom  the  Holy  Scripture  is  not  sufficient  to  give  that 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  Will,  which  is  necessary  to 
salvation,  may  turn  from  the  Supreme  Authority  of  the 
Word  of  God  and  find  that  knowledge  of  Him  through 
the  Reason.”  I  have  nowhere  denied  the  sufficieyicy 
of  Holy  Scripture.  I  have  ever  maintained  that  it  is 
sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  of  the  entire 
human  race.  The  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ  is 
sufficient  for  all  mankind.  The  Word  of  God  which 
proclaims  that  redemption  to  the  world  in  the  Gospel  of 
the  grace  of  God,  is  sufficient  for  every  one  and  for  all 
the  world.  But  the  sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture  is  one 
thing,  the  efficacy  of  Holy  Scripture  is  another  and  a 
different  thing.  The  Westminster  Confession  teaches 
that  “our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible 
truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof  (of  Holy  Scripture), 
is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing 
witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts  ”  (I.  5). 
The  Larger  Catechism  represents  that :  “  the  Spirit  of 


SPECIFICATIONS  2  AND  3  OF  CHARGE  I. 


25 


God  maketh  the  reading,  but  especially  the  preaching 
of  the  Word,  an  effectual  means  of  enlightening,  con¬ 
vincing,  and  humbling  sinners,  of  driving  them  out  of 
themselves,  and  drawing  them  unto  Christ ;  of  con¬ 
forming  them  to  His  image  and  subduing  them  to  His 
will ;  of  strengthening  them  against  temptations  and 
corruptions ;  of  building  them  up  in  grace  and  estab¬ 
lishing  their  hearts  in  holiness  and  comfort  through 
faith  unto  salvation”  (Quest.  155). 

It  is  evidently  the  teaching  of  our  standards  that 
while  the  Scriptures  are  always  sufficient,  they  are  not 
always  efficacious  to  those  who  use  them  ;  but  that 
their  efficacy  depends  upon  the  presence  and  power 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  and  with  the  Scriptures  in  their 
use.  I  affirm  both  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  efficacy  of  the  Scriptures,  when  the  Divine 
Spirit  accompanies  them  ;  but  this  is  not  to  affirm  that 
in  fact  all  those  who  use  the  Scriptures  as  a  means  of 
approach  to  God,  do  certainly  find  them  efficient  in 
their  case,  or  that  the  Divine  Spirit  may  not  work 
effectually  upon  some  men  through  the  Church  or  the 
Reason. 

It  is  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
that  the  divine  Spirit  is  free  and  is  not  confined  to  any 
one  or  to  all  of  the  means  of  grace.  This  doctrine  finds 
expression  in  the  words  of  our  Confession,  where  it  says 
“  the  Spirit  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  He 
pleaseth  ”  (X.  3). 

I  have  taken  the  late  Cardinal  Newman  at  his  word, 
when  he  said  he  did  not  find  certainty  of  divine  au¬ 
thority  through  the  Scriptures,  but  did  find  certainty 
of  divine  authority  through  the  Church.  I  have  not 
affirmed  that  Newman  found  divine  certainty  without 
the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit.  I  have  said  that  he 


26 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


found  divine  certainty  by  the  influence  of  the  divine 
Spirit  working  through  Church  and  Sacrament,  which 
are  means  of  grace  as  truly  as  Holy  Scripture.  I  have 
not  said  that  Newman  did  not  find  the  Scripture  suffi¬ 
cient  for  salvation.  Newman  himself  never  said  that. 
He  was  always  devout  in  his  use  of  Holy  Scripture.  I 
said  that  he  did  not  find  certitude  in  the  .Scripture,  but 
that  in  his  case  the  divine  Spirit  gave  that  certitude 
through  the  Church  as  a  means  of  grace. 

So  also  in  the  case  of  Martineau.  I  did  not  affirm 
that  he  found  the  Scriptures  insufficient  for  his  salva¬ 
tion,  but  I  said  that  he  did  not  gain  certitude  either 
through  the  Scriptures  or  the  Church;  but  that  he 
claimed,  and  I  recognized  his  claim,  that  he  found  this 
certitude,  this  certainty  of  divine  authority,  in  the  forms 
of  the  Reason,  using  Reason  as  Martineau  and  others 
have  commonly  used  it,  to  include  the  conscience  and 
the  religious  feeling. 

It  is  in  accordance  with  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Reformed  Churches,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  may  work 
directly  upon  the  souls  of  men  apart  from  Bible, 
Church,  and  Sacraments.  It  is  a  simple  question  of 
fact  whether  the  divine  Spirit  has  not  thus  worked  in 
the  case  of  Martineau.  My  judgment  may  be  chal¬ 
lenged  for  accepting  Martineau’s  own  testimony  in  the 
case ;  but  my  orthodoxy  cannot  be  rightly  challenged 
for  recognizing  Martineau  as  a  case,  in  the  category  of 
cases,  recognized  by  our  Confession,  of  those  directly 
approached  by  the  Spirit  “who  worketh  when,  and 
where,  and  how  He  pleaseth  ”  (X.  3). 

The  prosecution,  with  great  impropriety,  have  in¬ 
serted  in  the  midst  of  the  fact  so  wrongly  imputed  to 
me,  a  summary  of  their  own  composition,  setting  forth 
the  errors  of  James  Martineau.  This  is  entirely  irrele- 


SPECIFICATION  4  OF  CHARGE  I. 


27 


vant.  I  have  nowhere  affirmed  the  orthodoxy  of  Mar- 
tineau.  On  the  other  hand,  I  selected  him  as  a  man 
entirely  outside  of  the  camps  of  evangelicals  and  church¬ 
men,  to  represent  a  class  of  men  who  found  divine  cer¬ 
tainty  in  the  Reason.  The  prosecution  may  find  it  diffi¬ 
cult  to  believe  that  God  would  grant  certitude  to  such 
a  man  through  the  Reason  ;  but  they  do  not,  and  they 
cannot,  adduce  from  Holy  Scripture  or  Confession  any 
evidence  to  show  that  God  may  not  in  fact  grant  even 
such  a  man  as  Martineau  access  to  Him  through  the 
Reason,  notwithstanding  all  his  heterodoxy  and  neglect 
of  the  means  of  grace  so  necessary  to  other  men.  If  I 
have  in  the  cases  of  Newman  and  Martineau  taught 
erroneous  doctrine  when  I  have  said  that  the  one  found 
divine  certainty  in  the  Church  and  the  other  in  the 
Reason,  when  they  could  not  find  that  certainty  in  the 
Bible ;  then  that  passage  of  the  Confession  should  be 
pointed  out  which  teaches  as  a  cardinal  doctrine,  that 
the  Bible  is  the  only  means  used  by  the  divine  Spirit  to 
grant  certitude ,  certainty ,  assurance  of  grace  and  salva¬ 
tion  ;  and  that  cardinal  doctrine,  if  it  can  be  found, 
should  be  put  in  a  definite  charge,  sufficient  in  form 
and  legal  effect. 

B. — SPECIFICATION  4. 

Specification  4  also  comes  under  this  head.  It 
alleges  that  “  Dr.  Briggs  asserts  that  the  temperaments 
and  environments  of  men  determine  which  of  the  three 
ways  of  access  to  God  they  may  pursue  ”  (p.  19).  This  is 
also  a  false  inference.  The  specification  makes  two 
important  changes  in  my  doctrinal  statement.  The 
Inaugural  says,  “  Men  are  influenced  by  their  tempera¬ 
ments  and  environments.”  The  specification  changes 
the  passive  construction  into  the  active  and  thus  gives 
greater  emphasis  to  the  verb.  It  also  uses  instead  of 


28 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


the  verb  “influence/’  the  much  stronger  word  “de¬ 
termine.”  I  have  never  said  that  “the  temperaments 
and  environments  of  men  determine  which  of  the  three 
ways  of  access  to  God  they  may  pursue.”  I  used  the 
expression  “ influenced  by ,”  advisedly;  because  it  does 
not  exclude  other  influences  than  these.  Indeed  it 
would  be  quite  proper,  so  far  as  the  language  of  the 
Inaugural  is  concerned,  if  one  should  say,  “  Men  are 
influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environments 
which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may 
pursue,”  but  it  is  the  Spirit  of  God  who  alone  deter¬ 
mines  in  which  of  the  three  ways  they  shall  find  the 
divine  certainty  of  which  they  are  in  quest. 

But  even  if  the  specification  were  recognized  as 
valid  and  true,  it  is  irrelevant  to  the  charge ;  for  it 
does  not  appear  from  anything  in  the  specification 
itself  that  the  doctrine  of  the  specification  is  irrecon¬ 
cilably  in  conflict  with  the  cardinal  doctrine  that  “  the 
Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.” 

5. — SPECIFICATION  7  OF  CHARGE  I. 

Specification  7  alleges  that  “  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  that 
predictive  prophecy  has  been  reversed  by  history, 
and  that  much  of  it  has  not  and  never  can  be  ful¬ 
filled  ”  (p.  35). 

This  specification  makes  invalid  inferences  and  state¬ 
ments.  The  specification  makes  two  serious  changes 
in  the  sentence  of  the  Inaugural.  (1).  It  omits  alto¬ 
gether  the  qualifying  clause,  “  if  we  insist  upon  the 
fulfilment  of  the  details  of  the  predictive  prophecy  of 
the  Old  Testament,”  and  (2)  it  substitutes  for  “many 
of  these  predictions,”  the  careful  statement  of  the  Inau¬ 
gural  Address,  “  predictive  prophecy,”  a  general  and 
comprehensive  term ;  and  thus  alleges  that  the  address 


THE  PROOFS. 


29 


teaches  that  “predictive  prophecy  has  been  reversed 
by  history.”  This  allegation  is  entirely  without  justi¬ 
fication  from  anything  taught  in  the  Inaugural  Ad¬ 
dress,  or  any  other  of  my  writings.  I  have  ever  taught 
that  the  predictive  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament  has 
been  fulfilled  in  history,  or  will  yet  be  fulfilled  in  his¬ 
tory.  I  have  shown  in  my  book,  entitled  “  Messianic 
Prophecy,”  that  “  the  details  of  predictive  prophecy  ” 
belong  to  the  symbolical  and  typical  form,  and  were 
never  designed  to  be  fulfilled.  I  have  shown  the  his¬ 
torical  development  of  the  entire  series  of  Messianic 
predictions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  pointed  them 
towards  the  fulfilment  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour; 
and  have  urged  that  either  they  have  been  fulfilled  at 
His  first  advent,  are  being  fulfilled  in  His  reign  over 
His  Church,  or  will  be  fulfilled  at  His  second  advent. 

The  specifications  have  now  been  tested  as  to  their 
relevancy,  and  have  all  of  them  been  found  to  be  irrel¬ 
evant.  Only  two  of  the  eight  specifications  state  what 
can  be  recognized  as  facts,  and  these  two  can,  by  no 
process  of  logic,  be  brought  under  the  Charge.  If 
there  be  sufficiency  in  form  or  in  legal  effect,  in  any  of 
the  charges  and  specifications,  the  respondent  fails  to 
see  it.  He  submits  his  objections  to  the  Presbytery, 
in  the  confidence  that  they  will  receive  due  considera¬ 
tion,  and  that  the  Presbytery  will  take  proper  action 
with  regard  to  them. 

IV. — THE  PROOFS. 

The  objections  might  be  brought  to  an  end  here, 
were  it  not  important  to  save  the  valuable  time  of  the 
Presbytery,  by  calling  attention  to  all  such  faults  in 
connection  with  the  charges  and  specifications  as  should 
be  considered. 


30 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


The  citations  from  the  Inaugural,  from  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  from  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Cate¬ 
chisms  have  the  same  fault  that  we  have  found  in  the 
charges  and  specifications.  There  is  a  general  vague¬ 
ness  and  indefiniteness. 

I  object  (i)  that  it  is  not  in  good  form  to  cite  any 
more  from  the  Inaugural  Address  than  is  sufficient  for 
the  proof  of  the  specification  under  which  the  citation 
is  made.  Under  the  so-called  specification  of  Charge 
II.  a  long  citation  is  made  from  three  pages  of  the 
Inaugural  Address,  and  a  second  long  citation  from 
two  pages  of  the  Appendix  of  said  Address  is  given  to 
prove  one  knows  not  what  fact  or  charge. 

(2) .  The  citations  from  the  Westminster  Confession 
are  commonly  of  entire  sections.  The  committee  do  not 
claim  in  their  charges  and  specifications,  that  there  is 
offence  against  the  entire  doctrine  of  these  sections  of 
the  Confession.  They  should  be  required  therefore  to 
limit  their  citations  to  those  portions  of  these  sections 
that  furnish  probable  proof  of  the  position  taken  by 
them,  e.g.,  what  possible  advantage  is  gained  from 
the  citation  of  all  the  books  of  the  Bible  under  two 
different  specifications,  when  no  charge  or  specification 
is  made,  that  the  Inaugural  Address  questions  any 
one  of  these  books  as  a  part  of  the  canon  of  Holy 
Scripture  ? 

(3) .  Large  numbers  of  texts  of  Holy  Scripture  are 
cited ,  which  are  entirely  without  value  for  the  proof 
of  the  specification.  It  is  unnecessary  to  pick  and 
choose,  to  set  this  forth.  The  passages  mentioned 
first  under  the  specifications  will  suffice. 

(a).  Many  texts  are  torn  from  their  context.  The  first 
passage  cited  is  from  Isa.  viii.  20.  The  passage  is  in 
correctly  translated  in  the  version  used,  for  the  mean 


THE  PROOFS. 


31 


in g  “there  is  no  light  in  them”  is  not  justified.  The 
Revised  Version  renders  “surely  there  is  no  morning 
for  them,”  they  have  no  hope  of  a  dawn  of  brighter 
things.  The  proper  rendering  is  : 

“  When  they  say  unto  you,  Seek  unto  the  necromancers  and 
unto  wizards ; 

Ye  chirpers  and  mutterers,  should  not  a  people  seek  unto 
their  God  ? 

On  behalf  of  the  living  will  they  seek,  unto  the  dead  for  in¬ 
struction  and  for  testimony  ? 

If  they  say  not  so,  who  have  no  dawn,”  etc. 

This  passage  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  or  any  part  of  them  ;  but  is  a  rebuke  of  the 
people  of  Judah  for  seeking  necromancers  and  wizards, 
rather  than  the  living  God. 

(fi).  Many  of  the  texts  are  given  in  King  James  Ver¬ 
sion. ,  in  cases  where  the  Revised  Version  gives  the  cor¬ 
rect  rendering.  In  the  first  citation  under  Specification 
2,  the  passage  from  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  is  given  from  King 
James’  Version;  but  the  Revised  Version  renders, 
“  Every  Scripture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable 
for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction 
in  righteousness.”  There  is  a  difference  of  doctrine 
here  which  is  of  some  importance  in  the  use  of  this 
text  for  purposes  of  probation. 

(c).  The  Confession  requires  that  in  all  controversies  of 
religion ,  the  Church  is  finally  to  appeal  to  the  original 
Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  the  New  Testament  in 
Greek  (§  18).  No  such  appeal  is  made  in  the  specifica¬ 
tions,  even  in  cases  where  the  version  quoted  is  regarded 
by  scholars  as  incorrect  or  wrong.  The  first  citation 
under  Specification  3  is  from  King  James’  version  of 
John  v.  10.  If  one  turn  to  the  original  Greek  he  will 
see  that  the  translation,  “  believeth  not  the  record  that 


32 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


God  gave  of  His  Son,”  does  not  correspond  with  the 
original,  which  reads  “witness,"  and  that  witness  is  not 
Holy  Scripture  either  in  whole  or  in  part.  The  pass¬ 
age  is  therefore  irrelevant  to  the  specification,  to  prove 
that  I  am  in  error  in  teaching  that  Martineau  found 
divine  certainty  through  the  Reason.  In  that  this 
passage  of  Holy  Scripture  teaches  a  direct  and  imme¬ 
diate  testimony  of  God  within  a  man  without  the  me¬ 
diation  of  Holy  Scripture,  it  rather  favors  the  doctrine 
that  God  may,  as  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  pursue 
this  direct  method  with  some  men  in  our  days. 

(d) .  A  considerable  portion  of  the  verses  cited  have  no 
manner  of  relevancy  to  the  specifications  under  which 
they  are  given.  If  they  are  suffered  to  remain,  they 
will  tend  to  needlessly  prolong  the  trial.  The  three 
citations  from  Holy  Scripture  under  specification  4, 
from  1  Peter  i.  23,  25  ;  Gal.  i.  8,  9 ;  John  xiv.  6,  have  no 
manner  of  relevancy  to  the  question,  whether  men  are 
or  are  not  “  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  envi¬ 
ronments  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they 
may  pursue.”  That  men  are  “  begotten  again  ”  through 
“the  Word  of  God,”  “which  liveth  and  abideth  ”; 
that  an  “anathema  ”  is  pronounced  upon  any  one  who 
preaches  “  any  other  gospel  ”  than  the  gospel  preached 
by  Paul;  that  Jesus  is  “the  way,  the  truth,  and  the 
life,”  and  “  no  one  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  through 
Him  ”;  are  doctrines  taught  in  these  passages  and  are 
firmly  believed  by  me,  but  they  have  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  doctrine  that  I  have  taught  as  to  the 
temperaments  and  the  environments  of  men. 

(e) .  I  question  the  propriety  of  quotmg  any  passages  of 
Scripture  in  proof  of  doctrines  not  defined  by  the  West¬ 
minster  Confession  and  Catechisms.  The  constitution 
of  the  Church  defines  the  limits  of  obligation,  and  also 


THE  PROOFS. 


33 


protects  the  minister  as  regards  all  matters  of  belief 
and  practice,  outside  of  those  limits.  If  this  Presby¬ 
tery  had  the  right  to  decide  the  interpretation  of  pass¬ 
ages  of  Scripture  for  the  official  determination  of  doc¬ 
trines  undefined  in  our  constitution,  there  would  be 
a  new  way  of  amending  and  enlarging  the  Confession 
of  Faith  by  judicial  decisions  in  heresy  trials,  which 
would  contravene  and  subvert  the  constitutional  method 
of  revision,  which  has  been  made  an  essential  part  of 
our  constitution.  A  study  of  these  proof-texts  exposes 
the  fault  of  the  specifications  in  this  particular. 

The  passages  from  Holy  Scripture  cited  under  spec¬ 
ification  6  of  Charge  I.  are  60  in  number,  to  prove 
that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  and  Isaiah  wrote  the 
whole  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name.  Only  7  of 
these  are  used  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  five  of 
these  seven  under  other  chapters  of  the  Confession 
than  the  first,  leaving  only  two  of  the  sixty  that  were 
used  by  the  Westminster  divines  to  prove  their  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Bible ;  and  these  two  not  to  prove,  as  the 
specification  would  use  them,  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Isaiah ;  but  Luke  xxiv. 
27,  28,  to  prove  that  the  Apocrypha  are  no  part  of  the 
canon  of  Scripture;  and  John  v.  46,  in  the  original 
edition  of  the  Confession,  to  prove  that  the  Church  is 
to  appeal  to  the  original  texts  of  Scripture  ;  but  this 
last  is  very  properly  omitted  from  the  American  edi¬ 
tion  of  proof-texts.  This  fact  that  the  Westminster 
divines  use  only  2  of  the  60  texts  cited  by  the  pros¬ 
ecution  for  proof  of  their  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and 
not  one  of  them  to  prove  that  Moses  was  the  author  of 
the  Pentateuch,  or  that  Isaiah  was  the  author  of  the 
book  that  bears  his  name,  ought  to  convince  you  that, 
even  if  they  are  relevant  to  the  specification,  they  are 


34 


RESPONSE  TO  THE  CHARGES. 


not  relevant  to  any  doctrine  taught  by  the  Con¬ 
fession. 

Indeed  it  would  be  quite  easy  to  show  that  not  a 
single  one  of  the  large  number  of  Scripture  passages 
adduced,  has  any  force  for  the  proof  of  the  specifica¬ 
tions  under  which  they  are  adduced. 

All  of  these  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  are  accepted 
and  firmly  believed  by  me,  when  properly  rendered  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  original  Hebrew,  Aramaic,  and  Greek, 
which  “  being  immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  His 
singular  care  and  providence  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  and 
therefore  authentical  “  in  all  controversies  of  relig¬ 
ion,  the  Church  is  finally  to  appeal  unto  them.” 


These  objections  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges 
and  specifications  placed  in  my  hand  by  order  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  as  to  their  form  and  legal 
effect,  are  hereby  respectfully  submitted  to  the  Presby¬ 
tery  for  their  judgment. 

C.  A.  Briggs. 

November  4th,  1891. 


DR.  BRIGGS’  WORKS. 


American  Presbyterianism.  Its  Origin 
and  Early  History,  together  with  an  Appendix 
of  Letters  and  Documents,  many  of  which  have 
recently  been  discovered.  Crown  8vo,  with 
maps, . $3.00 

Messianic  Prophecy.  The  Prediction  of 
the  Fulfilment  of  Redemption  through  the  Mes¬ 
siah.  A  critical  study  of  the  Messianic  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  order  of  their  de¬ 
velopment.  Crown  8vo,  .  .  .  .  $2.50 

Biblical  Study.  Its  Principles,  Methods,  and 
History  of  its  Branches.  Crown  8vo,  .  $2.50 

Whither  ?  A  Theological  Question  for  the  Times. 
Crown  8vo,  .  .  .  •  •  •  $t-75 


How  Shall  we  Revise  the  Westminster 

Confession  of  Faith?  A  Bundle  of  Papers. 
By  Drs.  Briggs,  Evans,  White,  Vincent,  Park- 
hurst,  Hamilton,  and  Thompson.  i2mo,  paper, 
50  cents  ;  cloth,  .  $1.00 


M 


'ir 


